I hear what bjg is saying. If the conflict was something more along the lines of human kingdom vs human kingdom, there would be a lot more options and politics involved. Though I think once warcraft finally goes in, pvp will become a bit more meaningful.

A really bad sword with a short blade lies here. look sword This sword hardly even a sword. It's kind of really just a piece of metal bent like a sword. Its blade is rather short. Kind of pathetic, really.

#3? That could be addressed in any number of ways. If the sphere options in this game were such that encountering a member of another faction was a more complex situation than "OMG THE BADGUYS/GOODGUYS, ATTACK!", we might have more interactions that were... trade and political opportunities? Cultural exchanges and misunderstandings? Subterfuge and intrigue?

*hack-hack-cough-hillmen-cough*

I think the meaningfulness of this conversation, at its most potent, is definitely whether or not the current two-sphere setup will lead to anything other than OOC conflict and resentment, which isn't great for building a cooperative and supportive community. Having more plots and PVE-centered activities would certainly help the issue, but at its core, players will always pursue coded objectives with a certain fervent single-mindedness, and the biggest and baddest code objective in the current gameworld is PVP.

But, should consolidation happen, let the consolidation become the natural result of PC's in-game and in-character actions. Don't script the ending and force everyone down a tunnel.

If the orcs wipe out Utterby, create a human camp near Vadok Mal; they've been sent there by allies of the Necromancer, for some purpose, and most find a way to co-exist with the orcs despite the differences in culture.

If Utterby wipes out the orcs, send a criminal organization from Southglain to Utterby and make it a playable clan, with a focus on business and (largely) non-violent crimes.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting 'consolidation', as in one sphere. I'd rather two or more spheres that aren't in a state of perpetual and immutable life-or-death, all-out war. Orcs are great in Tolkien's world, but - please take no offense to this, orc players - are better left to being an admin-controlled threat.

This is not an indictment of the orc sphere or orc players. Hell, you could have a pretty good game if it was all about conflict between the Vadok Ushtarak and all the other clans in Vadok Mal. You could just as easily say that humans ought to be the NPC element. But PC orcs versus PC humans gives you a black and white scenario that puts players into a 'win first, roleplay later' mentality. Having players on both sides with nothing to do but kill each other if ever they should meet is shitty in an RPI.

And yes, the Hillmen would have probably been perfect for this if they had been implemented as an actual second sphere instead of the orcs. You'd have had conflict, but not always necessarily mortal conflict. But as we so often say... it's ALPHA: teaching us what would actually work in BETA, often by glorious failure.

---

I'll also be the first to admit that such a setup would NOT appeal to a portion of SOI's current playerbase, who are probably quite happy with the current setup and PvP situation, and who may in fact be in the (silent) majority. But for all the people who take issue with how PvP generally turns out - and since I've read this same exact thread for the last nine years I don't know how many times, there are more than a few - a general shift away from putting players in direct mortal conflict as the default and only intersphere option is probably the only way to actually 'fix' anything.

I can confirm that humans are still, indeed, no more innocent of poorly played-and-handled PVP roleplay than orcs (and all players) are, and everyone should probably stop pointing fingers and claiming righteousness. :p

Songweaver wrote:I can confirm that humans are still, indeed, no more innocent of poorly played-and-handled PVP roleplay than orcs (and all players) are, and everyone should probably stop pointing fingers and claiming righteousness. :p

This is true, especially when it comes to bow-based pvp. You simply have to shoot first, plus you can't RP from one room away and to get closer when you want to use a bow would be really stupid just for the purposes of emoting.

However if you are who I think you are, once I got into the same room with you and became aware that you wouldn't auto-run, I tried to rp the rest of the scene. You are only alive because I choose to rp over finishing the job. (if you are who I think you are)

I did feel dirty shooting first, but the generally accepted method of pvp I get from the last 5 pages of bickering is that everyone attacks first. It is alot easier to rp with someone you knock unconscious first than watch them spam run away and get 0 rp at all.

Gobbo wrote:I did feel dirty shooting first, but the generally accepted method of pvp I get from the last 5 pages of bickering is that everyone attacks first.

I opted not to attack first in the 2nd most recent pvp engagement you were involved in. If you feel dirty pulling a han-solo, then be the change you want to see in the game

A really bad sword with a short blade lies here. look sword This sword hardly even a sword. It's kind of really just a piece of metal bent like a sword. Its blade is rather short. Kind of pathetic, really.

Gobbo wrote:I did feel dirty shooting first, but the generally accepted method of pvp I get from the last 5 pages of bickering is that everyone attacks first.

I opted not to attack first in the 2nd most recent pvp engagement you were involved in. If you feel dirty pulling a han-solo, then be the change you want to see in the game

While this is true, the only reason that engagement happened is because someone twink fled BECAUSE we didn't shoot first and tried RP first.

Also there was very little time between catching us and going to code. Enough to put out a short emote or two if your a fast typer.

I want to be the change, but I also don't want to get murdered or fail because I refused to do what others are willing to do.

I've had more people twink-flee from me than I can count. Ganking people to make sure they don't have a chance to flee is just as unrewarding of an experience in my eyes as it is to try to emote and seeing the target flee before you hit enter. As far as the going to code part, I thought it was actually a fine call for you guys to initiate code when you did. We could have emoted out the opening blows of the battle a bit more, but it makes just as much sense to have the code decide what happens in that situation.

A really bad sword with a short blade lies here. look sword This sword hardly even a sword. It's kind of really just a piece of metal bent like a sword. Its blade is rather short. Kind of pathetic, really.

Songweaver wrote:I can confirm that humans are still, indeed, no more innocent of poorly played-and-handled PVP roleplay than orcs (and all players) are, and everyone should probably stop pointing fingers and claiming righteousness. :p

Curious Songweaver, is it worth going into your experience and hearing what you might suggest? I ask because I know that you wont fly off the handle and get crazy about it, and think that you'd be able to offer productive, non-blamey solutions. Was it just the fact that it was an archery encounter or was there more to it?

As it is archery is one of those big ones that doesn't seem to have an answer when it comes to PvP. Obviously archery is a legit weapon and tactic, but if you rupture someone with an arrow they're basically done, so it doesn't present them a lot of chances to RP, except to RP bleeding out and being killed by their pursuer, especially if they're RPing realistically and not running away after an arrow has literally passed right through their chest/leg, etc :p.

My post above wasn't really a gripe. I'm a proponent of code = roleplay. My personal philosophy is just to keep a list of folks who have shown willingness to roleplay without jumping straight to code, and a list of folks who have shown the opposite. For the later, I'm a lot more likely to simply code-kill them, myself, without wasting my time on roleplay.

That's just my philosophy. I suspect that the player involved in my recent experience can probably do better. Here's what I do:

If I'm open and visible in the wilderness, I pmote 100% of the time. If I'm roleplaying with another character in the wilderness, I include them in my pmote. By doing that, I'm attempting to show anyone who stumbles upon me that I'm more interested in roleplay than code.

In this case, the folks who spam-arrowed me probably could have thought to themselves, "Oh, that character is pmoting. Maybe it will roleplay with us." You don't have to use the bow code from a room out. Rooms are rather large spaces of land, in-game. I also got the feeling that the adrenaline was pumping when they attempted to roleplay later on; take your time and slow down, if you're going to attempt to roleplay out conflict. It will be more rewarding that way.

Now, if you shoot my character with a bunch of arrows, and I go hide and try to bind so that I don't die, and then you keep following and shooting me, and after repeating that process numerous times you finally attempt to roleplay with me -- well, in my mind, the scene's done. If I've had no roleplay and my character has six arrows in them, I'm probably just gonna twink out of there, and add you to my naughty list.

And with all of that said, I still believe that code = roleplay. I don't expect everyone to not jump to code immediately, but I do keep track of who is naughty and who is nice, and I'm just as good at twinking as I am roleplaying. :p

Great idea with the constant Pmoting in the wilderness, Songweaver. It certainly does send a message that if a person is putting up a pmote (which is a criminally underused command in general!) that they're probably a responsible roleplayer, or that's the message I'd take from it.

I imagine I would react much the same way if I'd been arrowed multiple times as well. If I've been shot at and hit a few times it would feel pretty clear that getting the kill was more important than whatever RP we could do and I'd bug out as well. I think it's a really good point that, with a responsible roleplayer, you can still use archery code in the same room too. If you were pmoted as being by the stream, and I snuck into the room (or failed a sneak or whatever) and I emoted that I was approaching you from the trees to the north, and you played unaware or turned and didn't instantly type "hit brian" that would give the person time to fire at least one arrow, which if you're looking for interaction is about all you can ask for I think.

Gobbo wrote:Longbow suffers a major penalty in the same room situations. I believe. Discouraging approaching like Songweaver said.

Depends. Shortbow is most accurate shooting2 rooms away. Longbow 3 rooms, crossbow point blank/1 room. Also, if you shoot into melee, you are taking penalties and will likely shoot one of your own instead

Well, that's your conundrum, really. If you choose coded advantage over roleplay against me, personally, I'm not going to cry about it, because I understand that that's how the game has been designed. But, you will lose the benefit of getting roleplay instead of my absolute best twinkery in future confrontations with me.

bjg2k1us wrote:If you're using archery? Probably the kill. You don't shoot an arrow at someone to 'roleplay' anything but trying to impale them with a deadly bit of metal on the end of a feathered stick.

Yeah that or you can't hope to compete in melee with your enemy with your shitty skills.

Right, which is why you'd use your archery to try and kill them. Which is perfectly acceptable. But if you think you can open with a volley and then get a nice, slow, meaningful emoted scene while your enemy roleplays bleeding out, the odds are not in your favor. You use code, chances are they'll use code. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But whether you use 'fire' or 'hit', you're out there going for a kill, and there's no reason for your opponent to think otherwise once you do. And since the only purpose for orc and human interaction is to get down to the 'firing' and 'hitting' sooner or later, it just strikes me as amusing that we have cries for 'more roleplay, less code' so often. If that's actually what everyone wants from PvP, then they're probably looking in the wrong place.

It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's not what the game is currently designed for. You can certainly put yourself at a coded disadvantage for a few emotes the way Brian and SW describe, if that's what floats your boat. But if anything, that's metagaming in the most suicidal way possible: doing something your PC would probably NOT do and putting themselves at risk for the potential OOC payoff of some emoting.

Well it may sound odd, but if you are not alone and if it isn't a 1 person attacking 1 person, should you have more people... You can leave the archers behind, move to approach the person and roleplay with those who will not use the bow. Once the conflict is about to start(coded) can just shout the archers to fire. You may also include having archers during the rp to give the other side an idea, maybe it'll make them weary or they'll shrug it off.

I know I personally tried roleplaying it in a PvP scene as a bluff. Didn't work out but if there were some, Orcs did give me and the imaginary archers enough time to fire arrows inbetween their final emote and going into code.

I think we just need to fix archery and make it the way it was on old SOI.

A really bad sword with a short blade lies here. look sword This sword hardly even a sword. It's kind of really just a piece of metal bent like a sword. Its blade is rather short. Kind of pathetic, really.

bjg2k1us wrote:If you're using archery? Probably the kill. You don't shoot an arrow at someone to 'roleplay' anything but trying to impale them with a deadly bit of metal on the end of a feathered stick.

Here's the crux of it and why I brought up the other thread in general discussion about the flee command, because I'm wondering now if for most players PvP is about roleplaying with the opposite sphere or if its about getting a player kill?

You'd think in an RPI environment the greater focus would be on antagonistic roleplay and the way that encountering enemies and being in brutal combat with them will impact your character. However, most of the responses, to me, point to PvP being about getting the satisfaction (if they find it satisfying...) of killing a player character. I'm talking about the motivation for the -player- there too; obviously your character wants to kill their enemy, but I think it's different when you the player want to kill your character's enemy, to the point where one might, say, ignore the realities of the world around your character to get that kill. This strikes me as an attitude more appropriate for an online shooter, but one that is prevalent here, unfortunately.